On 19/09/17 16:30, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Petr Jelinek
> <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> n 18/09/17 18:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> So, frankly, I think we would be best off losing the "logical rep
>>> worker slot" business altogether, and making do with just bgworker
>>> slots. The alternative is getting the postmaster involved in cleaning
>>> up lrep slots as well as bgworker slots, and I'm going to resist
>>> any such idea strongly. That way madness lies, or at least an
>>> unreliable postmaster --- if we need lrep slots, what other forty-seven
>>> data structures are we going to need the postmaster to clean up
>>> in the future?
>>>
>>> I haven't studied the code enough to know why it grew lrep worker
>>> slots in the first place. Maybe someone could explain?
>>>
>>
>> I am not quite sure I understand this question, we need to store
>> additional info about workers in shared memory so we need slots for that.
>>
>> If you are asking why they are not identified by the
>> BackgroundWorkerHandle, then it's because it's private struct and can't
>> be shared with other processes so there is no way to link the logical
>> worker info with bgworker directly.
>>
>
> Not sure, but can't we identify the actual worker slot if we just have
> pid of background worker? IIUC, you need access to
> BackgroundWorkerHandle by other processes, so that you can stop them
> like in case of drop subscription command. If so, then, might be
> storing pid can serve the purpose.
>

I don't think that pid can be trusted to belong to same process between
the calls, if we could we would not need BackgroundWorkerHandle.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers